A and C agree completely.
In the second hand aircraft lottery my limited experience has been OK, but a lot of older aircraft, especially over the recent recession have been under utilised and neglected and our Northern Atlantic climate has not been too kind to them!
Some shops in the US are trying to industrialise refurbishing 172/182 series to like new, and the end product is costing around $250k, plus the original airframe (typically a Q). Diamondaire does the same for the Aztec, and again the full airframe overhaul, plus engines etc is coming in at $300k plus airframe. I am not sure the all in cost of a Petersen/Katmai, but must be similar to a new 182 Jet-1.
A brand new 172SP or DA40 with all the modern safety enhancements is probably close to true economic value, as it is not to far off what a real overhaul to new limits/standards costs when starting with older airframes.
Even before the SID checks we had a customer bring a Cessna to us that he had just obtained, it would seem that the the guy had been blinded by the new Garmin avionics that were fitted in a death trap.
The customer was unable to see that he had been had big time by the previous owners and quickly focused his anger on us for giving him the bad news and the costs of putting the defects accumulated over years of neglect right.
Never again will I get involved with such an aircraft without the customer agreeing on paper that he is fully aware that the restoration of the aircraft will cost more than he paid for the aircraft.
To give you an idea of the condition of the aircraft about 75% of the MOR’s that I have raised since I got a maintenance licence were in connection with this aircraft and it is the only aircraft that I have had the CAA inspect on the basis of submitted MOR’s.
So as a maintenance company I would be very carefull about taking on a job such as Robert L 18C is looking at without both party’s going in eyes wide open and the customer able to afford a lot of parts & labour.
Here is a link to the Cessna .ppt
http://m.authorstream.com/presentation/SteferlGordon-1385160-cessnasid-instructional-doc/
Hopefully as more SIDs are carried out we get a clearer picture of trouble spots.
I have a soft spot for early 182 s but would not consider a purchase without the SID completed.
A list of good CAMOs who know how to carry out the SID sensibly would be helpful.
I will sell you both my C152’s if you let me ride that Harley-Davidson coast to coast !
Wouldn’t you rather ride a motorcycle coast to coast? :-) :-)
RB
I will do you a deal……. I will sell you both my C152’s if you let me ride that Harley-Davidson coast to coast !
Has been good to read your considered opinion on the subject A&C.
Going back to your comments on 152’s, my flying club employer has me out on an open ended coast to coast trip to the US next week- the instruction is simple- don’t come back till you have bought a pair of 152s! The situation is getting desperate. I wonder what dissuades the boys at Wichita from putting the 152 back in production?
Edit- I’d totally forgotten about the 162! Not exactly been a staple of the flying training scene has it? I wonder if they could make money from churning out a cheap, proven, slightly modernised 152 line, it sounds as if 162 isn’t going to work out.
RB
Yours is an interesting view, spar corrosion for my aircraft was a non issue may be this was because the aircraft had been subjected to a corrosion control program ( as Cessna call it ) long before the SID’s existed and it turned out the fluid we were using was to become Cessna approved for the SiD’s.
Apart from the flap tracks the biggest single issue was worn rudder hinge brackets, the six brackets cost £ 900 and due to a prohibition of the use of cherry rivets the rudder has to be De-skinned to get on the back of some of the rivets.
Most of the cost was the nif naf & trivia issues suck as broken anchor nuts, smoking rivets, stiff or worn cable pulleys, and small areas of light corrosion.
To increase reliability most of the electrical cables forward of the firewall were replaced, these at first did not seem to bad but the previous owners had covered a multitude of problems in heat shrink tube once this was removed the condition of some of the cables was truly appalling, it is no wonder some of the aircraft of this age are electrically unreliable !
From an engineers perspective, I think there’s value on doing some of the SIDs on older aircraft, almost certainly on ones which live outside and have had spots of surface corrosion elsewhere. I’d imagine most don’t turn anything up but I have heard that the spar fittings are fairly frequently found to be corroded on Cessna twins.
Its not so much the spar itself but the fittings that are attached to the spars, which provide the bolt holes for mounting the wings. Seems the corrosion gets between the fitting and the spar web. Actually quite a few of the SIDs are NDT based but mostly require component removal before it is carried out.
Some of them could be done for peace of mind when you are having other work done in that area, nose gear tq link/fork inspection for example could be carried out next time you eventually need to replace the nose oleo seals. Most of the SIDs aren’t as involving as the spar fittings one.
From a regulatory point of view the German authorities have no option to make the SID’s mandatory as they abide by the manufacturers maintenance program and Cessna have made the SID part of that. The UK has the LAMP program and this makes things a bit more unclear as it enables the CAMO to exercise some discretion as to what they consider appropriate, if used properly I think this is a good thing as a well loved 3000 hour aircraft that has always lived in a hangar will not require the same attention as a 16,000 hour club trainer. However one only has to see the condition of the average UK club trainer to see that the UK CAA is leaving the door ajar to the unscrupulous.
As policy my company decided to do the SID’s it has been very expensive and time consuming, this on two aircraft that my customers considered to be far above the industry standard in the UK with IRO £25K being spent on each aircraft, mostly on things that were approaching the end of their lives but were best done when the aircraft was dismantled and parts ( relatively ) easy to change.
I can quite see how the operators of some of the UK flying club fleet aircraft are so pleased at the UK CAA attitude as it lets them continue to operate aircraft that they can’t afford to put through a SID’s inspection simply because the cost would be far above the £25K that my relatively well looked after aircraft amassed.
The real upside for me from the SID’s is that the first aircraft has had a year of flying that has resulted in no maintenance apart from the routine checks and changing the brake linings and I expect the return to service of the second aircraft to be as smooth.
The Cessna 152 is the only game in town at the moment for basic flying training so good aircraft are at a premium, you will see a lot of £12-15K dogs on the market but no £45K immaculate aircraft………………. That is because the good aircraft never get as far as being advertised in the press, they are snapped up by those investing in the next five to ten years of their business.
I should also add that the CAA LAMP maintenance program was found by EASA to be non-compliant so soon or later that will have to be resolved, my guess is the UK will end up having to do the manufacturers maintenance program so for the UK the SID’s issue is not over yet.
Yes – there is always a residual liability which is completely impossible to avoid, and that is one of the reasons for having insurance 
What is the verdict on the SIDs? Is it that some do turn up potentially dangerous corrosion, but most turn up nothing at all?
Is there no NDT process e.g. ultrasound or x-rays? I know for example it is possible to check for exfoliation type of wing spar corrosion using ultrasound from the outside of the wing skin – assuming of course the exfoliation is happening on the top or the bottom of the “I”
If it is happening in the side of it then only visual inspection will be of any use.
